A recent survey highlights (again) how sexual harassment is largely unreported. According to the survey, 1 in 5 women report being sexually harassed by a boss at some point and 1 in 4 women report being sexually harassed by a co-worker. While 6% of men report being sexually harassed by a boss and 14% of men report being sexually harassed by a co-worker.

Despite that, more than 95% to 98% of sexual harassment victims never report to anyone that they were sexually harassed, according to a number of different studies. The reasons range from fear of retaliation to fear of judgment, to fear of simply being labeled as a trouble maker. Others don’t report because they hope the conduct stops.

Our law firm represents employees who were sexually harassed. We represent employees both during employment and after they have moved on to new employment. Please feel free to contact an attorney at our law firm for a no-charge initial consultation at 1-800-578-HELP (4357).

Preventing and reducing sexual harassment is very important. Although preventing and reducing sexual harassment is attainable with a little effort, some businesses take the calculated risk of doing nothing, or doing little, thus needlessly exposing their employees to sexual harassment. Also, by taking sexual harassment seriously, employers show their employees that sexual harassment is serious.

In continuing to shine light on sexual harassment, a 15th woman now claims she was sexually harassed by the San Diego Mayor.

If anything, this again demonstrates how 95% to 98% of sexual harassment victims remain completelysilent (with some speaking out only when compelled to do so).

According to the allegations, most of the 15 women did not report the sexual harassment at the time it occurred largely because they say they were too scared and didn’t think anything would be done anyways.

Sexual harassment is very serious – no man (or woman) has the right to put their hands on (in a sexual way) or make sexual demands upon workplace subordinates.

If you have been sexually harassed or otherwise mistreated, or know of someone who has, it is critical to seek legal advice right away.

Senator McCaskill continues her fight against sexual harassment and abuse in the military. This morning she appears on NBC’s Meet the Press. She is particularly focused on stopping retaliation for those who report sexual harassment and abuse so that all may feel protected and safe when they report the truth.

Sexual harassment is under-reported in Washington DC, including in the halls of congress, according to a recent article. The San Diego mayor’s (alleged) extensive sexual harassment has sparked a dialogue on workplace conduct, including sexual harassment. Before he was the mayor, he worked in Congress for almost two decades. Even though 7 women now accuse him of sexual harassment in San Diego, there are surprisingly no reported complaints while he was in Congress.

On April 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court will hear a very important civil rights case. The issue: what must an employee show to win a retaliation (or discrimination) lawsuit under federal law?

In 1989, the United States Supreme Court said that to prove discrimination under Title VII (federal law), an employee need only show that their protected class (sex, race, age, etc.) was a “motivating factor” in the discrimination.

For instance, when making a decision to hire an employee an employer may take into consideration dozens of factors such as the employee’s experience, computer skills, education, availability, etc. Similarly, when making a decision to fire an employee usually an employer will have more than one factor (or reason), maybe even dozens.

In most cases under federal law, Courts say an employee must win if the employee shows only 1 of the motivating factors (reasons) was an unlawful reason (such as sex, race, age, etc.). In other words, there is zero tolerance for discrimination.

However, in 2009, the United States Supreme Court said that to show age discrimination under federal law, the employee must show age was the “but for” (only) reason for the termination, and if the employer would have fired the employee anyways then the employer is not responsible for the firing.

So, for age discrimination under federal law the employer only need to come up with 1 legal reason to fire an employee and the employer must win. Practically speaking, it is very easy for an employer to make up 1 legitimate reason.
Now in 2013 the United States Supreme Court must decide whether we have zero tolerance for retaliation and discrimination (retaliation and discrimination may play no part in a firing, for instance), or whether an employer can escape responsibility if the employer simply shows 1 “legitimate” reason for the retaliation or discrimination.

The filing with the Supreme Court states:

In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 258, 268-69 (1989), a plurality of the Court held that the discrimination provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), requires a plaintiff to prove only that discrimination was “a motivating factor” for an adverse employment action.

In contrast, Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 179-80 (2009), held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), Pub. L. 90-202, 81 Stat. 602, requires proof that age was “the but-for cause” of an adverse employment action, such that a defendant is not liable if it would have taken the same action for other, non-discriminatory reasons. The courts of appeals have since divided 3-2 on whether Gross or Price Waterhouse establishes the general rule for other federal employment statutes, such as Title VII’s retaliation provision, that do not specifically authorize mixed-motive claims.The question presented is:Whether Title VII’s retaliation provision and similarly worded statutes require a plaintiff to prove but-for causation (i.e., that an employer would not have taken an adverse employment action but for an improper motive), or instead require only proof that the employer had a mixed motive (i.e., that an improper motive was one of multiple reasons for the employment action).

The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.﻿
This is provided as a guide only, and not legal advice. Please contact our firm at 1-800-578-4357 for a no-charge legal consultation for sex harassment, sexual harassment or discrimination.